MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103520759

Preventive health care, 2001 update: should women be routinely taught breast self-examination to screen for breast cancer?

2001· article· en· W2103520759 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nancy N. Baxter

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerCINAHLRandomized controlled trialMEDLINECochrane LibraryBreast self-examinationFamily medicineHealth careObservational studySystematic reviewBreast cancer screeningPhysical examinationCohort studyCancerMammographyGynecologySurgeryNursingInternal medicinePsychological intervention
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence relating to the effectiveness of breast self-examination (BSE) to screen for breast cancer and to provide recommendations for routine teaching of BSE to women in various age groups as part of a periodic health examination. OPTIONS: Routine teaching of BSE to women. EVIDENCE: The electronic databases MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, CINAHL, Health-STAR, Current Contents and the Cochrane Library were searched for abstracts and full reports of studies published from 1966 to October 2000 that evaluated the effectiveness of BSE in reducing breast cancer mortality. In addition, references of key papers were searched and experts consulted to ensure that all relevant articles had been identified. OUTCOMES: Prevention of death from breast cancer was viewed as the most important outcome; other outcomes examined included the stage of cancer detected, the rate of benign biopsy results, the number of patient visits for breast complaints, and psychological benefits and harms. VALUES: The recommendations of this report reflect the commitment of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to provide a structured, evidence-based appraisal of whether a manoeuvre should be included in the periodic health examination. BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among Canadian women, accounting for 30% of all new cancer cases each year. In 2000 an estimated 19,200 Canadian women would have been diagnosed with breast cancer, and 5500 would have died from the disease. To date, 2 large randomized controlled trials, a quasi-randomized trial, a large cohort study and several case-control studies have failed to show a benefit for regular performance of BSE or BSE education, compared with no BSE. In contrast, there is good evidence of harm from BSE instruction, including significant increases in the number of physician visits for the evaluation of benign breast lesions and significantly higher rates of benign biopsy results. RECOMMENDATIONS: Women aged 40-49 years: Because there is fair evidence of no benefit, and good evidence of harm, there is fair evidence to recommend that routine teaching of BSE be excluded from the periodic health examination of women in this age group (grade D recommendation). Women aged 50-69 years: Because there is fair evidence of no benefit, and good evidence of harm, there is fair evidence to recommend that routine teaching of BSE be excluded from the periodic health examination of women in this age group (grade D recommendation). The lack of sufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the manoeuvre in women younger than 40 years and those 70 years and older precludes making recommendations for teaching BSE to women in these age groups. The following issues may be important to consider: Women younger than 40 years: There is little evidence for effectiveness specific to this group. Because the incidence of breast cancer is low in this age group, the risk of net harm from BSE and BSE instruction is even more likely. Women 70 years and older: Although the incidence of breast cancer is high in this group, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation concerning BSE for women 70 years and older. Important note: Although the evidence indicates no benefit from routine instruction, some women will ask to be taught BSE. The potential benefits and harms should be discussed with the woman, and if BSE is taught, care must be taken to ensure she performs BSE in a proficient manner. VALIDATION: The findings of this analysis were reviewed through an iterative process by the members of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. The task force sent the final review and recommendations to 4 independent experts, and their feedback was incorporated in the final draft of the manuscript. SPONSORS: The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is funded through a partnership between the Provincial and Territorial Ministries of Health and Health Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations219
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207